Evidence map›Paper›PMID 36068591›Full record

ArticleBMC rheumatology2022

Consideration of health literacy in patient information: a mixed-methods study of COVID-19 crisis communication in Dutch rheumatology.

Mark Matthijs Bakker, Tess Luttikhuis, Polina Putrik, Isabelle Jansen, Jany Rademakers, Maarten de Wit, Annelies Boonen

Open access · goldAbstract read
In one paragraph

Article in BMC rheumatology, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 3 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
3citing papers in PubMed
1.1field-weighted citation impact, top 20% of its field
1 · What the graph read from it

What it found

Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.

The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.

2 · The registry

The trial behind it

Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.

Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

3 citing papers in PubMed, 4 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Article
  2. Article
  3. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

7 authors at 2 institutions in 2 countries.

Mark Matthijs BakkerDepartment of Internal Medicine, Division of Rheumatology, Maastricht UMC, PO Box 5800, 6202 AZ, Maastricht, The Netherlands. mark.bakker@mumc.nl.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0002-8972-1300
Tess LuttikhuisDepartment of Internal Medicine, Division of Rheumatology, Maastricht UMC, PO Box 5800, 6202 AZ, Maastricht, The Netherlands.
Polina PutrikDepartment of Internal Medicine, Division of Rheumatology, Maastricht UMC, PO Box 5800, 6202 AZ, Maastricht, The Netherlands.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0002-9342-1861
Isabelle JansenDepartment of Internal Medicine, Division of Rheumatology, Maastricht UMC, PO Box 5800, 6202 AZ, Maastricht, The Netherlands.
Jany RademakersCAPHRI Care and Public Health Research Institute, Maastricht University, Maastricht, The Netherlands.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0003-2742-4543
Maarten de WitTools2Use Patient Association, Amsterdam, The Netherlands.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0002-8428-6354
Annelies BoonenDepartment of Internal Medicine, Division of Rheumatology, Maastricht UMC, PO Box 5800, 6202 AZ, Maastricht, The Netherlands.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0003-0682-9533
Maastricht University Medical Centre · NLMaastricht University · NL

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundThe rapid spread of COVID-19 required swift action to provide people with rheumatic and musculoskeletal diseases (RMDs) with reliable information. People with limited health literacy constitute a vulnerable group that might have difficulty accessing, understanding and applying health information, particularly in times of crisis.

objectivesThis study explored (a) key aspects of crisis communication and (b) explicit consideration of people's health literacy needs in communication to people with RMDs during the first wave of COVID-19 in the Netherlands.

methodsWe conducted a convergent, qualitatively driven mixed-methods study comprising seven qualitative interviews with professional representatives of organisations responsible for information provision to people with RMDs, and quantitative analysis of 15 patient information materials distributed by these organisations. The study was guided by principles of crisis communication and health literacy. We assessed understandability and actionability of information materials using the Dutch version of the Patient Education Materials Assessment Tool (PEMAT, resulting in a percentage of quality criteria met), and language difficulty level using an online application (assessing difficult words, jargon, passive, complex and long sentences, long paragraphs, and difficulty levels according to the Common European Framework of Reference for Languages (CEFR, from A1 (basic) to C2 (proficient))).

resultsRespondents reported lack of preparedness, challenges related to scientific uncertainty and reaching the target group, difficulty simplifying information, and uncertainty regarding adequacy of the communication approach. Patient information materials (written and video) showed variation in actionability (range 60-100%) and understandability (range 58-100%), and 69% of written materials were too difficult, mostly due to the use of long sentences and difficult words. The quantitative findings were in coherence with the limitations in communication reported by respondents. Several potential improvements were formulated in 'lessons learned'.

conclusionsAlthough rheumatology organisations mostly adhered to principles of crisis communication and made efforts to adapt information to their audience's needs, we propose recommendations to improve preparedness, strategy, content, reach and consideration of health literacy needs in future crisis communication.

Indexed as

COVID-19Crisis communicationHealth literacyPatient information

Identifiers

PMID36068591
PMCPMC9449268
OpenAlexW4294841132

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.